RAJU MORE Vs. RAMESH CHAND KHANDEWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY making this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are accused in Complaint Case No. 802/94 (later on, re-numbered as Complaint Case No. 7577/2002); pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, has sought for setting aside the quashing not only the complaint, which has given rise to the Corn-plaint Case aforementioned, but also the order, dated 14-3-2008, whereby the learned court below has, due to absence of the accused-petitioners, in the case aforementioned, directed issuance of non-bailable warrants of Arrest against them fixing 21-5-2003 for their appearance.

(2.) I have heard Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners.

(3.) THE law, with regard to quashing of criminal complaint, is no longer res integra. A catena of judicial decisions have settled the position of law on this aspect of the matter. I may refer to the case of R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) : (1960 cri LJ 1239), wherein the question, which arose for consideration was whether a first information report can be quashed under section 561a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held, on the facts before it, that no case for quashing of the proceeding was made out; Gajendragadkar, j. speaking for the Court observed that though, ordinarily, criminal proceedings instituted against an accused must be tried under the provisions of the Code, there are some categories of cases, where the inherent jurisdiction of the Court can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. One such category, according to the Court, consists of cases, where the allegations in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases, no question of appreciating evidence arises and it is a matter merely of looking at the FIR or the complaint in order to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases, said the Court, it would be legitimate for the High court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal court to be issued against the accused. From the case of R. P. Kapoor (supra), it becomes abundantly clear that when a mere look into the contents of a complaint shows that the contents of the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted to be true in their entirety, do not disclose commission of offence, the complaint shall be quashed.